Since we’re playing the “why don’t you respond” game, how about this one:
Note that this picture was taken at the time the first building started to collapse (which was the second building that hit). The first building hit (the second to fall) has smoke billowing out of it and obvious fires.
And you are correct - buildings and people are not comparable. But the sub/torpedo analogy brought up earlier is comparable to WTC/airplanes. Please don’t dodge the question(s).
Well, do you expect a 200 years dead composer to get the “calvinball” reference? 
But yeah, I understood it just fine. I don’t know where he got this idea that anything was ‘unanimous’.
Thinking the towers were brought down by bombs instead of airplanes is like thinking JFK wasn’t shot but instead the CIA implanted a tiny device in his brain which they blew up by remote control when Oswald shot because uh, well because. He might miss, I guess. Actually, that’s a lot more credible than the bomb idea.
I think the Truthers would be even more popular if they dropped the retarded demolition idea. There’s no evidence that any domestic party was helping the hijackers, but it wouldn’t be too hard to convince credulous people given U.S. history and, hell, the actions of the same administration when they were telling us about how Iraqi officials were buying yellowcake from Niger or they had these mobile weapon labs or they were going to spray the U.S. with bio-weapons using balsa airplanes and all these other great stories. But they were all discovered as forgeries and lies almost instantly, and everyone and their dog wrote a book about it, and there’s miles of internal documents about it.
But then you start talking about demolitions and free fall speed and space lasers and teh j00z, well…
Which reminds me that we still don’t know who Mozart1220 thinks is responsible.
Cui bono indeed. I think if you objectively look at the evidence the person who clearly had the most to gain was none other than…Gary Condit.
He is here to ask questions, not answer them…or to listen to answers provided, apparently.
Quoth xtisme:
Actually, there was an unusually large amount of stock market activity like short-selling airline stocks on that date, which presumably would profit from the attacks. I haven’t heard much follow-up, but I would certainly hope that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies have followed the money trail to the people involved. I’d guess , though, that it’s much more likely to be someone in Al Qaida who decided that since they were attacking us anyway, they might as well make a profit on it, than shadowy Americans who orchestrated the attacks for that purpose.
Mr. Market Timer here (moi) had the good sense to buy 200 shares of Boeing on Sept. 1st 2001. So, no matter what the wingnuts try to pin on me, I’m in the clear and have the paper trail to prove it! 
Is there a link available that shows this to be true(not to be confused with the thousands of links available to cites that heard that it was true)?
Yes, since stock brokers keep detailed records of trades, the investigators found the traders and came up with nothing suspicious. The 9/11 Commission Report says:
"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10…
Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".
Saying improbable things makes them true?
Well at least he’s consistent in his debate tactics.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t UAL and American Airlines stocks be the last thing you would want to purchase on Sept. 10 2001 if you had some knowledge of the coming attacks? Selling them short, yes. But buying them??? 
Buying a “put” is basically the same as selling them short, except doing it on margin (IIRC).
ETA: So they sold short UAL and then bought American stock. The UAL puts made news, buying AMR stock didn’t. That’s largely because the volume of puts is much smaller than for direct trades so single large trades can be noticeable.
A put is selling short. And the American stock, I believe, is the counter argument to “this guy did this with foreknowledge.” He ate shit on that.
Their minds are already made up, they’re just here to preach the message. That’s why they never listen or respond to answers no matter how logical.
It’s offensively annoying to be honest.
The only thing worse than that day is some loon trying to convience me that it was an inside job.
OK, then, that’s probably why I never heard a follow-up. “Somebody was short-selling a lot of United Airlines on that day!” makes for a good news story, but “…But he turned out to not be connected to the plot and lost even more money on American Airlines” doesn’t.
The simple answer is that the WTC1/2 floors were like “leaves”, attached at points to the outer structure of the building. The blast knocked the ablative crap off of key structures, and weakened or destroyed a number of the peripheral support points.
There had been short-selling in even larger amounts a few months prior to that but hardly anyone ever mentions those.
And notice that the puts on UAL were placed on September 6. Not even on “that day.”
BTW, the Truthers will complain that the FBI didn’t release the names of the people who shorted UAL and AMR, so how do we know the investigation was honest?
…And the list of conspirators grows by several dozen anyway.
That doesn’t mean anything.
Puts are normally placed a few days, or at least a few hours in advance. You want to make sure that they get into the trading system in time.
Unlike day trading, these are normally done because you think that the stock price will change over the next few days or weeks, so you order a put to make money from your anticipation of how the stock will move. There is no reason to wait for the specific day you think the price will change, and some reasons not to wait.